Explaining Libertarianism
Over the past several months there has been some discussion in the gulch as to differences in our political philosophies and how it fits into the understanding of what the gulch stands for. I can across this video from a sociology teacher who explains on his website, in generally an objective way, current events in the news as it relates to social and government issues. In watching this video I liked the matrix he uses to simplify where various political philosophies fall. This may give some clarity for those who want a visual piece to identify their own philosophy. I used his video on libertarianism since many on this site subscribe to these concepts but he also explains liberals and conservatives in another series of videos. My impression is that he addresses issues in a fairly objective way that may be able to help those who might be confused on their own identity. He incorrectly lists Gary Johnson as the former Arizona governor when he actually was the governor of New Mexico. Where do you stand on the matrix? Where do you think most gulchers place themselves? Finally where do you think Obama fits? Is the placement by the person on the video correct. Can you identify where member c (as identified in Scott Desapio's recent "Confidence" post) might be? The matrix gave me a slightly greater understanding as to how someone might call themselves Libertarian and still support Obama. Prior to the video I did not recognize a left libertarian vs a right libertarian. Did you?
SOURCE URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AtpXnIiEWo
As to the "left libertarian" and "right libertarian" question, you'll find that they turn the square on its side [to a diamond shape] with the 4 sides being Libertarian, Conservative, Statist, Liberal. I carry one around in my purse just to confound people with.
He said one of the criticisms of libertarianism is it's a political philosophy ,not practical. You could say the same thing about the Founders of the US trying to build a real-life state based in part on John Locke.
This matrix seems to be created to sell libertarianism, which suits me fine since I consider myself moderate libertarian. I say moderate b/c I think it's a necessary evil for the gov't to tax people to pay for non-excludable things, like keeping us safe from invasion and crime. Unlike most objectivists, I'm okay whether that's hitting a violent teenager on the head and taking him to jail or giving him taxpayer-provided meals and job training-- whatever works. It should not be alms, a "safety net", or the notion that righteous people put others ahead of themselves. "Helpful" programs can easily metastasize into a gravy train, but so can prisons, military bases, a war on Americans who use drugs or like Big Gulps, and every thing gov't ever does. I guess I smack in the center of light-green-colored libertarian left.
Regarding particular politicians, I do not think much about their place on the chart. Some of us are aspie and good at getting things working and modeling things on charts but struggle to care about strangers, look them in the eye, remember their names, etc. Politicians are the opposite-- masters as making you feel like you're their friend. They don't think about ideology and details that much. They have no idea about the nuts and bolts of things. They're good with people, think they're the good guys, and get warm fuzzies having people notice them, care about them, and treat them as "VIPs". Humankind needs aspies and politicians. What I want is the aspiring politicians, i.e. staffers, to say is, "all kinds of people, people we know from the events, are writing opposing this ammunition ban. We'd better let the congressman/senator/president know." I try to ignore their political song and dance.